Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states in line 12 “execute the modulation processing for a second reception signal” and in line 16 “coefficient of the second filter processing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Also, “the modulation processing” is a limitation of the transmission device, however in line 12 the limitation is within the reception device. This is confusing. Furthermore, line 19 states “matches the first reception signal including the noise”. This limitation is confusing as it is not clear how this “matching” takes place. The claim doesn’t seem to state any physical connection within the adaptive filters i.e. the matching is based on the first reception signal but the claim doesn’t comprise any limitation showing any connection of the first reception signal with the second adaptive filter. Furthermore, the limitations pertaining to the estimator also don’t make it clear how the estimation is performed i.e. the estimate is performed of the first reception signal on a basis of the updated tap coefficient but there doesn’t seem to be any clear connection shown between the first reception signal, the first adaptive filter and the second adaptive filter.
Claim 3 states “the modulation processing for a second reception signal”, “the first filter processing”, “a second adaptive filter”, “including the noise”. There is insufficient antecedent issues within these limitations. Furthermore, the claim states “second” components, however there are no “first” components for the second ones to be present.
Claim 4 states “executing the modulation processing for a second reception signal”. The modulation processing is performed by the transmission device. How is the reception device performing the same modulation as the transmission device? Furthermore, the limitations state “updating tap coefficient of the second filter processing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira (JP 2020184696A) (see translated copy for relevant paragraphs) in view of Ohtani (US 2011/0052198) in further view of Liu (US 2015/0304025).
Regarding claim 1 and similar claims 3 and 4, Akira teaches a communication system (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a transmission device and a reception device (Fig. 1, transmission by 2-1/2-2 and reception by 2-4/3), the transmission device including a first modulator configured to output an optical signal for which modulation processing has been executed to an optical transmission line (Fig. 1, modulation by modulator 2-2; page 6, paragraph 4), and the reception device including a first adaptive filter configured to execute first filter processing for a first reception signal including noise generated in the optical signal in the optical transmission line (Fig. 2, first adaptive filter 301 filtering input optical signal comprising noise generated while traveling from the transmitter to the receiver), a demodulator configured to execute demodulation processing for the first reception signal for which the first filter processing has been executed (Fig. 2, demodulator 302; page 7, paragraph 7), a second adaptive filter (Fig. 2, filter 401; page 7, paragraph 11) configured to update a tap coefficient of the second filter processing (Fig. 2, using update processing unit 404) such that a result obtained by executing second filter processing for a second reception signal matches the first reception signal including the noise (page 7, paragraph 12, similar to the delay device 31…; page 7, paragraph 1), and an estimator configured to provide estimation on a basis of the updated tap coefficient (Fig. 2, estimator 403; page 8, paragraph 8 and 9).
Akira doesn’t teach a second modulator configured to execute the modulation processing for a second reception signal obtained as a result from the receiver.
Ohtani teaches a second modulator configured to execute the modulation processing for a second reception signal obtained as a result from the receiver (Fig. 2, output from receiver 102 is modulated by encoder 103; paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reception device taught by Akira and incorporate the encoder taught by Ohtani in order to add error correction code in order to help control the error rate of the second reception signal prior to performing any estimation.
Akira in view of Ohtani doesn’t teach an estimator configured to estimate at least one of a differential group delay or a polarization dependent loss of the first reception signal on a basis of tap coefficient.
Liu teaches an estimator configured to estimate at least one of a differential group delay or a polarization dependent loss of the first reception signal on a basis of tap coefficient (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reception device using tap coefficients taught by Akira and incorporate the estimator taught by Liu in order to estimate the DGD value for measuring the quality parameters thereby facilitating the network operation and maintenance (Liu: paragraph [0013]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira (JP 2020184696A) (see translated copy for relevant paragraphs) in view of Ohtani (US 2011/0052198) in further view of Liu (US 2015/0304025) in further view of Winzer (US 2014/0186033).
Regarding claim 2, Akira in view of Ohtani in further view of Liu teaches the communication system according to claim 1.
Akira in view of Ohtani in further view of Liu doesn’t teach wherein the estimator unit further estimates at least one of a differential mode delay or a mode dependent loss of the optical transmission line.
Winzer teaches wherein the estimator unit further estimates at least one of a differential mode delay or a mode dependent loss of the optical transmission line (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reception device taught by Akira in view of Ohtani in view of Liu and incorporate the function of estimation of a mode dependent loss of the optical transmission line as taught by Winzer for measuring the quality parameters thereby facilitating the network operation and maintenance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights